On climate change fiction trumps truth
Global warming reports 'scientifically unsound', so why don't the media care?
By LICIA CORBELLA
It's too bad the world's media don't hold the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the same standards they hold large corporations.
When Enron cooked the books there were -- rightly -- no end of indignant columns and talk shows condemning these high-paid fraudsters who massaged the numbers to fit their agenda and bolster their bank accounts.
The whistleblower who tried to get Enron to change its evil ways, Sherron Watkins, was named one of Time magazine's People of the Year.
But when it comes to scientists who whistleblow about IPCC reports cooked by politicians to fit their politicized agendas, those whistleblowers are either ignored or dismissed as "skeptics" or quacks and are labelled as haters of this planet and nature, even though most of them have dedicated their lives to studying nature and protecting it.
Dr. Christopher Landsea, a leading expert in the field of hurricanes and tropical storms resigned as an author of the IPCC 2007 report, stating the IPCC was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound."
"I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns," wrote Landsea, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory.
Sounds a lot like what happened at Enron, doesn't it?
Landsea said a lead author for the IPCC report asked him to provide the writeup on Atlantic hurricanes in what he thought would be "a politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate."
Landsea, a contributor and reviewer for the IPCC report in 1995 and 2001, says this author, having been told research showed "no global warming signal found in the hurricane record," attended a Harvard lecture stating the polar opposite.
"I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability... All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."
But, science be damned. The pro-man-made global warming crowd wanted to sex-up the threat of a warming planet so they just made it up. Pulled it out of a hat.
Exaggerating to get your way is a tactic former U.S. v-p Al Gore, the star behind the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, admitted is acceptable.
"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis," said Gore in a May 2006 interview with Grist Magazine.
Gore's admission that he makes like Pinocchio to make a point on global warming should be an inconvenient truth, to be sure, but the mainstream media -- which positively love the doom and gloom scenario of man-made global warming -- have been virtually silent on this.
Also ignored has been Dr. Frederick Seitz, past-president of the National Academy of Sciences, who wrote in June 1996, with regard to the 1995 IPCC report: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
"This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page," Seitz wrote.
So what was removed from the original 1995 IPCC report that was approved by ALL of the contributing scientists?
The following passage is just one example of what was deleted from the original scientists' report:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
Dr. Seitz continued: "IPCC reports are often called the 'consensus' view.
"Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."
But the evidence doesn't say that and neither did the scientists.
That's what the actual consensus said. That was changed. That's fraud. Billions of dollars are being shuffled around the world to support the lie. Much money is at stake -- much more than Enron multiplied. So, why don't the media care?
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2007/02/11/3587144-sun.html
Global warming reports 'scientifically unsound', so why don't the media care?
By LICIA CORBELLA
It's too bad the world's media don't hold the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the same standards they hold large corporations.
When Enron cooked the books there were -- rightly -- no end of indignant columns and talk shows condemning these high-paid fraudsters who massaged the numbers to fit their agenda and bolster their bank accounts.
The whistleblower who tried to get Enron to change its evil ways, Sherron Watkins, was named one of Time magazine's People of the Year.
But when it comes to scientists who whistleblow about IPCC reports cooked by politicians to fit their politicized agendas, those whistleblowers are either ignored or dismissed as "skeptics" or quacks and are labelled as haters of this planet and nature, even though most of them have dedicated their lives to studying nature and protecting it.
Dr. Christopher Landsea, a leading expert in the field of hurricanes and tropical storms resigned as an author of the IPCC 2007 report, stating the IPCC was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound."
"I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns," wrote Landsea, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory.
Sounds a lot like what happened at Enron, doesn't it?
Landsea said a lead author for the IPCC report asked him to provide the writeup on Atlantic hurricanes in what he thought would be "a politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate."
Landsea, a contributor and reviewer for the IPCC report in 1995 and 2001, says this author, having been told research showed "no global warming signal found in the hurricane record," attended a Harvard lecture stating the polar opposite.
"I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability... All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."
But, science be damned. The pro-man-made global warming crowd wanted to sex-up the threat of a warming planet so they just made it up. Pulled it out of a hat.
Exaggerating to get your way is a tactic former U.S. v-p Al Gore, the star behind the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, admitted is acceptable.
"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis," said Gore in a May 2006 interview with Grist Magazine.
Gore's admission that he makes like Pinocchio to make a point on global warming should be an inconvenient truth, to be sure, but the mainstream media -- which positively love the doom and gloom scenario of man-made global warming -- have been virtually silent on this.
Also ignored has been Dr. Frederick Seitz, past-president of the National Academy of Sciences, who wrote in June 1996, with regard to the 1995 IPCC report: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
"This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page," Seitz wrote.
So what was removed from the original 1995 IPCC report that was approved by ALL of the contributing scientists?
The following passage is just one example of what was deleted from the original scientists' report:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
Dr. Seitz continued: "IPCC reports are often called the 'consensus' view.
"Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."
But the evidence doesn't say that and neither did the scientists.
That's what the actual consensus said. That was changed. That's fraud. Billions of dollars are being shuffled around the world to support the lie. Much money is at stake -- much more than Enron multiplied. So, why don't the media care?
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2007/02/11/3587144-sun.html
